the galah

I remmeber the days when the likes of lisa allpress would ride at invercargill and would start improving with 800m to go then really push them along from the 600m .She and one or two other north island jockeys used to win a lot of races that way. for them it all was about forward momentum. but you look at most of those races today,not one jockey is doing that. most of them just sit there,then with about 400m to go ask their horses to go but the track seems too wet to accelerate much and they miss the boat unless they are in the first 2 or 3. i miss having those north island jockeys riding down there as at least you knew if you backed one that lost, it lost because it wasn't good enough. those were the days.

i've been watching the south island gallops and i wonder whether sometimes the apprentice jockeys are just riding to instructions and that trainers are telling whatever you do, don't do this or that. either that or some are as bad as i have ever seen. race 1 at invercargill,friendofthedevil .i guess the apprentice was under instructions to not move until they turned for home. it went from the perfect 1/1 position and travelling great with 600m to gor,then waited till halfway down the straight,some 10 lengths from the leader and finally being asked to go. soemthing seems wrong when they get ridden so bad. I just not sure the reason for it?

yes,and i would say in nz the number of smaller punters is declining at a faster rate on harness racing due to the lower tote dividends of the favorites ,when compared to galloping. i read this week that turnover on british horse sacing was down 1.6 billion pounds in the last 2 years. as to the last 3 months,british racing turnovers for run of the mill meetings is down 14.4%,although the premier meetings have stayed at the same levels. Larger punters are seen as the main drivers of turnover at the run of the mill meetings,but they are not iinvesting like they used to,which is being blamed to a large degree on the rules the government brought in around gambling,with betting agencies having to check peoples credit and profit losses,etc. Apparently 1/3 of larger punters have instead turned to black market betting providers.. Of course you can't do that in nz. but the point being,that whatever the reason punters are being restricted for, either here or in britain,its the larger punters who drive turnover and if the larger punters are being discouraged from betting then turnovers will fall. all pretty much just common sense you would think. i know some people will say here,well the less winning punters you have the better your profit/loss. While there is some logic to that,that seems to be what is trying to be implemented here and of course thats directly related to turnovers going down. we all know its pointless for someone to even put as little as $200 a place on the tote on a horse at a run of the mill harness meeting here. e.g. say you put $200 a place on the biggest turnover race at winton today,which was race 7. Had you backed,closer to start time, the 2nd horse you would have halved its dividend from $5.20 to about $2.50. Or say if you had put that $200 a pl;ace on the 3rd horse you would have dropped its dividend from $2.60 to about $1.60. I mean .lets face it,only i a fool would be putting much on the tote these days because of the low pools. so only the smaller punters are still investing on nz harness on the totes and the bigger,more successful punters are investing on the ff and if successful are being limited. so its inevtitable that racing in areas which have low starter numbers and lots of hot favorites,are going to be a drain on the industry. And the crazy thing about harness racing is that the governing body is viewed as prioritising the people who provide the horses at the meetings that return losses and that the governing body does that at the expense of those who provide the horses for the meetings that run at a profit. i mean,its quite hard to comprehend the stupidity of those who are making these decisions,but they are. the whole industry,whether it be the governing body or those who's job it is to promote turnover, are both heading in the wrong direction. And when you head in the wrong direction,even if you realise and turn around and go in the right direction,you have to travel so much further just to end back at square one w,whcih is where you started.And of course,thats a problem when you only have a finite amount of petrol in the car.

Well the bookies opened claasee at $1.70 today and it drifted to $2.05. The money tracker shows today it was by far the most heavily supported in its race. Really,this horse is the gift that keeps giving for the bookies. Claasee,was unlucky last start for sure,but how many horses back up 4 days after a gut buster like it had on sunday.Then to top things off it was asked to loop the field midrace.Maybe they were the instructions,but it was money for jam for the bookmakers today. One thing i've noticed about southland racing and really most harness meetings,is how ridiculously short some favorites are. So often these days,the bookies open a horse short and then it just gets shorter. today 3 of the first 4 winners paid $1.75 or under. Another 2 paid $2.50 and $2.80. The $2.80 winner wasn't even favorite. if you put a $ e.w on all the favorites on ff prices around closing time,you would have spent $14,backed 4 of the 7 winners but lost money. On tuesday at cambrdge there were some crazy hot favorites. The likes of patrick mahomes,who is a horse i've followed,closed paying only $2 to win.I mean patrick mahomes a $2 favorite was just ridiculous. All these hot favorites really isn't helping turnover. Really you can see why harness is struggling. only the grass tracks with the big even fields provide a betting product which has appeal to the punters. these other meetings with so many hot fasvorites,even when they win,unless you got on really early,you would never back them in the last hour because the prices are so ridiculous. and as i've said,lthe tote prices for favorites thse days mimics the ff closing prices as it appears the bookies off load as the race closes to limit their losses on the favorites,thus dropping the tote prices. anyways,southland has been heading down the same path as auckland racing. Just not as attractive to bet on like it used to be a few years ago.

maybe.but i don't think there are many more obvious things than the one i'm highlighting. It involved a hot favorite and that incident effectively looked to cost it the win. i think the stipes saw it and chose to overlook it because of what i said earlier. the stipe in charge at that meeting,vinny munro is a former international rugby referee . I think he refereed about 3 internationals and quite a few super rugby games and lots of provincial games. i remember reading an article about him when he moved to be a stipe. i just looked it up again. he was quoted as saying "like anything there were highs and lows. There were some wonderful experiences around the world meeting some wonderful people, and then decisions that you make sadly some people hold you accountable and take it personally". so i think hes trying to walk the line,hold people accountable but not upset them.No doubt he interacts a lot with those he polices. well that may be all well and good,but theres another factor at play when it comes to racing.The punters. Punter confidence in the product goes down when they see instances of drivers actions being overlooked when it effects horses they've punted on .Punters are like spectators in a rugby game,but less forgiving as they have some of their hard earned $ riding on outcomes. Anyway,its not as if punters are baying for blood as they recognise drivers make mistakes. All punters want, is to think the stipes are doing their job,which means punters should be able to expect the horse they bet on, can rely on fair play from its opposition drivers.

thats why i guess a kyle thought he could improve on the inside. But even if robyn hustler,who drew 2 is a little bit wider than normal,the drivers in the photo on the inside are not permitted to come off as obviously it would create interference. Its like in any race where the leader may be running more than a carts width off the inside,trailing horses do exactly the same. You don't see drivers improving on the inside because its not the done thing. If drivers did that and they come to a bend and the lead horse moves in a little and dictates that the horses following do the same,then your going to have inteference if someone has improved up the inside in midfield. I think the failure of the stipes to even mention it,indicates southland stipes are happy to overlook such things. possibly a factor is the stipes involved have double standards of enforcement if an inexperienced junior is involved. I say that because its the second case involving a junior driver in just the last week that i've highlighted. The other was in the north island. The stipes have very important jobs to do. two of the most important facets of their job is saftey standards and integrity standards. In the years leading up to operation inca i questioned on this forum why the stipes took no action in investigating what i saw as a handful of very obvious questionable drives.Turned out those drives were part of the catalyst for operation inca.Had the stipes done their job, i believe operation inca would never have happened.The most obvious reason they didn't take any action was because it was simply the easy way for them to deal with such occurences. In other words,lets not upset anyone as they will really moan and the stipes will cop some flak,so lets not upset these people as we have to deal with them each week,so lets just turn a blind eye. And thats what they did. Wel,here we have a different issue,that of safety,but again its something that, if it southland or the north island,they are happy to overlook. i mean,its their job to look at things like we are discussing.There shouldn't have to be an accident before they mention it in their stipes report.

One of the bookmakers favorite horses ,classee again got beaten yesterday as an odds on favorite. These things happen,but the strange thing about its unlucky run yesterday was the run it received and how that got no mention in the stipes report. having looked at the video many times,its seems quite clear that classee had positioned itself behind the horse that drew 2,in the 1/1 posisition. then ,while in the 1/1 position following the number 2 horse,another horse improved inside the horse to classees inside.. In others words,that hose,ask me lou,improved into a position that it really shouldn't have been entitled to or was able to without hindering those outside it.i guess it was one of those races where the horses were racing slightly off the inside as you often see,otherwise he wouldn't have been able to improve,but still he should have known not to do that anyway. but it did happen and everyone could see as a result of that,drivers were turning their heads and obviously drivers would have been voicing their opinions along the lines of,what are you doing,you can't do that. so the upshot of it all was the hot favorite,who most punters would have been watching,went from a good position to a very bad position through no fault of its own. So my question is,given it all seemed pretty obvious,how come the stipes didn't even think it worth a mention. It seemed another inconsistent application of the rules depending on what area something happens.

The concessions for juniors is a good thing if your perceived as a talented up and coming junior,but reality is its doing very little for the drivers in the bottom half of the junior premiership. so far this season,of those in the bottom half of the premiership, only 2 have managed to average more than 2 drives a week. and theres less juniors having driven so far this year then the previous couple of years. And i don't think the concessions has that much to do with the 5 juniors being in the overall top 10. Yes,they would have got more drives when they started off their careers,which would have given their talents greater exposure,but 4 of the top 5 juniors aren't concession drivers anyway and the other one won't be for much longer. To me the junior driver concessions are all a bit smoke and mirrors. On the face of it they give the appearance of prioritising juniors. but as i've said,reality is its doing next to nothing for the bottom half of juniors and its not relevant for the more successful drivers. So in reality only about 1/3 of the juniors are getting any benefit from it. Then theres the,well its not as if theres more drivers driving because you have concession drivers. In other words,if they are getting more drives,then other drivers,most likely those who are not juniors and struggle to maintain much income to continue participation in the sport,well they are losing drives. And then you have HRNZ paying juniors gear and licence renewals. Thats all well and good. But what about the people who struggle to get enough income to keep their horses. They in effect are paying more to hrnz so hrnz can cross subsidize the juniors. Iits just logical to say,that if one group,within a group of either owners/trainers/drivers/rating of horses,etc is getting preferential treatment then other groups are recieving less than fair treatment. Previously i have given my suggestions on here for better and fairer ways to give all juniors,at all levels a fairer go and in a way that doesn't have a negative effect on others who struggle to make a living who are juniors. but like most of what i suggest,don't see the point in going through my thoughts as its nothing like the system currently in place and because i think it would work better,it will never be implemented anyway. people should ask themselves this,are more of the current juniors going to continue their particpation in the industry long term because of the current system?

Unfortunately i'm still able to only view the last 3 stories on your website. I got to see the robertsons,hannah and barron stories. all great clips capturing the moment and providing content that is relateable to the very people the industry should be focussing on trying to retain,but instead are prioritising as the bottom of the pile. as i've expressed before,your videos/stories should appear on the hrnz website. Its an indictment on the thinking of those that run harness racing,that they don't see the value in having your videos available for viewing on their website. but you've been doing your thing for some time now and like the people you interviewed on thursday,they appear to take your significant contribution for granted as well.Its a real head scratcher .

Auckland reactor....theres a coincidence. Do you get that ? "i should get out more.....you've told me that before.......thats recognised as one of the most common pieces of advice given by psychiatrists...hmm... did it work for you??? Makes stuff up....you mean stuff like auckland trotting club members being excited when they came home from a meetimg after being told the land sale had fallen through....huh... And your telling me i have an imagination.....No sunshine,i am closer to the truth than you.

josh dickies a bit of an egnima,as regards to how horses respond to him. I have to admit,i don't like backing horses he drives ,but sometimes i do and sometimes they run really well and sometimes they don't. like he drove debrief to win at cambridge recently and that horse obviously ran for him, which pleased me. and from what i've seen on trackside,he seems to be a good thinker and obviously a hard worker. But,still hes not a favorite of mine. I wouldn't blame his driving for the disappointing results of the telfer horses at manawatu. They do seem to have a lot of horses who go ok,but who need more experience,as nowornever has pointed out.Punters need to factor that in.Really i did think some of their horses that were haeavily backed at manawatu didn't deserve to be so short on form. Iron brigades was a deserving favorite,but his manners were poor,as it usually beings from a stand but broke both times. What i've noticed about the telfer horses is they seem to improve when they come to the south island. but the odd thing is that improvement can come within a short space of time.. Maybe they get a different pre race treatment from a canterbury vet. actually something i always factor in for that stable is if they go to southland they seem to improve even more. Its not the quality of horse they run against,theres a definite improvemnet and you can see it in their body language. They run down there like the cullen horsers do in the bigger races. e.g. general jen for cullen. also the telfer trained horses always give the impression that not much time is spent of standing start practice. Its like they are used to going out onto the track for training,warmed up ,turned aroiund quickly and then come off the track quickly. i guess they would have a lot of horses to work each day and have to get through them all.

Nathan purdons doing the right thing not driving. when he was driving there was a handful of topics on this site about his driving. If i commented ,it was always along the lines of, for some reason horses just don't run for him. personally i've always though b orange is the best,as good as d dunn,but n rasmussen not too far behind and mark purdon tops as well. Actually one thing thats always been true about the all star horses. When they go to the races,even in the lead up races to the bigger races they were always there to win. Compare that to say marketplace.That is why the all stars drivers have always been held in such high regard by all punters. mark purdon is obviously a very cunning driver. Like when marketplace got beaten in its first run at auckland. There was mark purdon on rubira,he drew the outside,but no doubt he would have read the comments from the marketplace connections. So what does he do,he anticipated the possibilty of a the negative drive by c ferguson out of the gate,and quickly took advantage of that to position himself in front. H ewon a $60,000 race when really he shouldn't have,simply by being more cunning that the other drivers.

chief we've discussed the new york cases many times before. i've referred you to the indictments,the evidence presented,the press releases from those prosecuting the cases and the judges comments at sentencing. I've even referred you to the admissions made by many of those charged and the evidence given by some, as to what they knew and how they particpated in ,illustrating the guilt of others. Yet you keep sticking to all those 30 or so trainers,most of who were sentenced to significant jail terms,were gulity of being sold snake oil.. If you followed the cases you would know why most were just charged with the one charge of drug adulteration or misbranding. all that,yet you just ignore the relevance of it all. your views expressed on here have never properly represented the cases,in my opinion.

i'm not disagreeing with anyone who says they are still a very dominant force in the sport. But the general concensus from those who have posted on this topic,apart from chief,is the current stable is not replicating the level of achievements thats were achieved going back 5-10 years. i think what the current stable is achieving really, is results similar to 15-20 years ago. we have been discussing why that is. and i've been saying ,some have been overlooking an obvious factor. Back around 1990,the peter blanchard stable and the kevin townley stable were top trainers,then they went through about 5 years where their achievemnets went to unprecedented heights.Then they introduced the pre race milk shaking testing and those stables chose to operate within those rules and there level of performance returned to the previous levels. I've also referred to the new york/nz connection. i have previously referred to how the trainers who were imprisoned and lost parts of there wealth as a result of those cases,trained at yonkers and were mid table achievers,then when the drug peddling vet came along and they became clients,they went to the top 3 spots on the yonkers training premierships. Thats all documented.It was no coincidence. So the nz owner who regularly went to new york,who was a documented client of the crooked vet,who regularly attacked on his meida webiste anyone who said anything bad about the all stars and who also used his website to heavily criticise jeff gural for insinuating that thiose yonkers trainers were using performance enhancers. It just makes sense to me to consider that theres a link between the increase in level of performance by not only the all stars but the oher stable he used and thatfurther proof of that link has been the subsequent drop off in performance.People can think it coincidental if they want,but personally i don't.

So it seems you and chief and tabforever seem to have settled on natalie rasmussen being the key. The stats tell you,that is the only option you can use. So mark purdon after years of training ,meets natalie rasmussen then goes from great trainer to the greatest trainer ever. then natalie rasmussen no longer is there and mark purdon goes back to being a great trainer,no longer the greatest ever. I mean really,aren't you fellas missing something. mark purdon won the nz cup in 1995 and 1996 with il viccolo. Then he went winless in that race until 2014,the year natalie rasmussen just happened to join him in partnership and then they trained the winners of 6 of the next 7 nz cup winners. sometimes even completely dominating, filling the top 3 placings. Then she leaves and they havent won the nz cup since. Their winning streak ending coniciding with what i have mentioned before. I mean you guys are ignoring the obvious. And the obvious,in my opinion is what i have said all along.

i agree with both the above.

While i accept the argument that mark purdon being hands on every day was significant,i personally don't place as much weight on the views that because he hasn't been there full time,it has equated to what even his most loyal supporters seem to agree,is a slight drop off in results. That,in other words,is implying that his son and his staff,many of whom have worked for that stable for some time,are not as capable. For example they haveb had staff like blair orange working there recently and he of course he had previously worked for mark purdon for a decade. And then you have the horses that the stable is racing in auckland in recent times,,presumably under the surpervision of mark purdon. its not like mark purdon won't be hands on for those horses while they campaign in auckland. The sales purchasers factor makes sense to a degree,but that argumentbeing put forward seems to be,because they haven't been quite as active in the last 3-4 years,that they don't have the numbers to dominate on the same scale. Well if that was applicable then they may not be dominating numbers wise,but they should still have what they have being able to run like they used to wwhen rasmussen was thwere,but they have no horses that have the run forever look to them now. Another aspect being argued is natalie rasmussen was such a great driver. Well thats true. But shes not as good as blair orange and hes been there stable driver recently. So,i think if you stood back and took a fair minded balanced view of where that stable is at,you would say,yes the above mentioned factors do come into play,but no they aren't the complete picture. The complete picture would factor in what i have given as what i think is the main reason. also,i would say if you don't accept what i put forward as the main reason,then perhaps consider the drop off in form associated with another trainer that had the same connections hen the all stars were at that dominant level. Have you seen any of his horses having the run forever look to them,or have you seen any of those come from another stable and win first up at addington by 18 lengths these days? all stables go through runs also. The difference between what we were seeing 5 years ago and what we see today is the all stars don't have the run forever look to them. That doesn't come from training.

i don't get the blair orange reference.not sure whether its got something to do with my having posted before a few times that i believe he is the gold standard for skill and always trying 100% of the time,when it comes to drivers. I always make up my own mind about things based on what i see. as to your other comments,we been over that before a few times,and i don't think currently,we're ever likely to convince the other, anymore than in the past. so,should i debate you this time on your other points. No,as to quote the great philosopher,lord edward blackadder the second,debating you would be like a broken pencil. pointless.

What a silly reply. I wonder about some of your replies to my comments sometimes. do you read what i say before you post. Just to remind you what i said. heres what i said.

I think your comments are fair enough if thats your interpretation .obviously you feel aquamans one sentence comment was unnecessary. Fair enough if thats what you think. Its just i didn't interpret aquamans comments as trying to " discredit any possible medical decisions" or comment in a negative way on his "medical condition",as you have said he had done. i just can't see how you get that from his one line response. I thought its obvious aquaman was referring to the link between having had a serious case of covid/or the covid vaccine and the increased risk of aneurysm. I do strongly agree with you,that its premature for anyone,whether it be media or social media to be inferring anything without knowing the facts. I mean,other media reports seem to be inferring its nothing to do with what aquaman has said. But reality is,when your high profile,the publics curiosity comes into play and you get such speculation.Thats just how things work. Maybe i shouldn't have commented on your reply to aquaman,as thats not what i want to be discussing either, but i just thought i would point out i thought aquaman said nothing negative about mr sugars and that I don't quite get why this thread went in that direction myself.

Its not surprising you would get someone commenting on cause of death,as after all,isn't that the first question everyone asked when they heard about the news of his death,given he was so young and active.. Maybe aquaman simpy read a media report, where a possible cause of death was given, and in his mind the topic he brought up may be something people should think about. I know i read one such report, where possible cause of death was given, and was thinking the same as aquaman. Having said that,i agree with you that public speculation about that aspect is somewhat premature,nor the best timing.But still,i cant see anything wrong with what aquaman has said, as this is a public forum and everyones perception of the point and scope of this thread, may vary. To most,the average punter,like myself,we never had any personal contact,nor were ever likely to. But we still felt we got to know him to a degree through seeing him on trackside.Whenever the punter had any money invested on one of his drives,they had full confidence that he would be doing his best for them, to achieve the best results,each and every time and we appreciated that. And that seemed to apply in any race wherever and whatever level applied.And all punters admired the level of skill and judgement of pace that he possessed.To most his death is a tragic occurence and we just move on with our memories and focus on our own lives ,but to many who seemingly knew him well,,it appears that sugars death will be something those people will be significantly impacted by.

I agree with you. I think its just illogical to suggest the all stars trainers have lost any of theiir skills. Mark purdon is still the person who most would call nz's best trainer. The fact that the all stars aren't currently dominating to the extent they once were,i would have thought made many realise that there was truth in what people like newmarket and i have been saying in the past. That is,part of the winning formula ,was access to treatments which enhanced performance,whicv others didn't have. you know people like chief can point to udr's and stakes and whatever,but chief will always defend them because its what he does.He would die on that hill before acknowledging what everyone can see.But even gammalite appears to be acknowledging the obvious and hes always been such a fan. I'm sure he still is. They are still the same great trainers. But it was always just rubbish ,when people like mick guerin or others would tell us,they are simply on a level that others will never reach. That was always a load of rubbish,the top trainers in nz are all capalle of achieving with the right horses. Mark purdon was the top of that group,and he should still be viewed that way. My theory as to the timing of the drop off in complete dominance has been it may have links with the new york cases and to some extent initially supply chains due to covid. . I say that because,as i started threads on beofre,a very high profile ownert of mark purdons,who used to use his media platform to attack jeff gural,was listed on the laist of clients of the vet who supplied all the performance enhnacers to the trainers. Why did jeff gural specifically leave his nameon the list of clients,when he redracted most. Also,his all stars highest level of dominance came when ms rasmussen was there,and i think her skill were a definite factor,but also she had contacts as well. The surprising thing i've noticed in the last year is rthere seems to be one stable that seems to be able to get horses from the likes of the all stars and improve their performances. Not just them ,also from another couple of leading stables.I can see why the owners who demanded success at all stars ,would be changing stables going by the results.

yes some good fields at auckland. It will be interesting how they drive marketplace. I suppose he tries to lead throughout. J dunn did outdrive c ferguson last week,although the draws make it harder for dunn this week.Punters who had been on marketplace when he got beaten 3 starts ago probably prefer seeing got the chocolates wins,but marketplace being a bettors delight and got the chocolates an art major,mean marketplace should suit the 2700 more.. I aslo though p ferguson was a very clever tactical drive last week. He knew john dunn would come of the inside ,and realising c ferguson seemed to be showing no interest in taking up the likely 1/1,so he placed himself there and gave dunn a better buffer from markerplace. The drive of the last month at auckland,was the ben hope drive on muscle mountain,when he opted to trail instead of leading. That tactical decision,which he must have oplanned pre race,would have come with a lot of mental pressure,knowing he could have coped a lot of critism if things had gone wrong. havuing said that,i do think its going to be very hard for muscle mountain to replicate winning tommorow night from the ur 10m.I'd like to see him win,but somehow i think it won't happen from his starting position,unless hiope can somehow work some more magic.

yes,i watched the box seat tonight. i'm not a regular viwer but might do so more and did think its content was good.These days they seem to be more in tune with what the average harness follower considers interesting and in the right doses.The presenters are all good and a good combination,even micky g's input.In my opinion.

I know it was just a low grade race at cambridge on a tuesday,but the north island stipes must know some people still watch and bet on those races and can see when a driver does something they shouldn't. Race 6 at cambridge,bonnie parker driven by k coppins broke on the first bend,then for the next 50m was driven in a way that totally confused the following drivers. Initially she angled it out,then no better go back in,then no better go out after all.Badly hampering the 2 trailing horses. Now i'm not saying the stipes need to be picking on anyone,but can't they at least apply the rules the same as they do in the south island. All the stipes had to do,to satisfy punters that they hadn't dozed off again was include in the stipes report that k coppins was spoken to for the manner in which she drove. The north island stipes must know a driver is supposed to take their horse clear of the field,or at the very least try and maintain its line. That horse was not hanging.It was steered out,then in,then out.,all within 50m. On 6 february,b ford,driving blinkin bones was fined $300 for failing to take his horse clear of the field when in a break. If you wacth the video,yes he was at fault,yes the penalty seemed fair even though he defended it,but no it was nowhere near a confusing drive as what we saw tonight. Some people get annoyed by standing starts,not me,my bug bear is the inconsistent application of the rules because they aren't doing their job and farly enforcing the rules,ensuring everyone is treated the same. Not one rule for some and another for others. Why do they treat people differently?